Aarushi Dhingra , Brenda Gannon , Luke Connelly , Gita Mishra
{"title":"辅助生殖技术使用和融资的公平性:收入重要吗?","authors":"Aarushi Dhingra , Brenda Gannon , Luke Connelly , Gita Mishra","doi":"10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50554,"journal":{"name":"Economics & Human Biology","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 101491"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?\",\"authors\":\"Aarushi Dhingra , Brenda Gannon , Luke Connelly , Gita Mishra\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics & Human Biology\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101491\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics & Human Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X25000243\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics & Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X25000243","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?
This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.
期刊介绍:
Economics and Human Biology is devoted to the exploration of the effect of socio-economic processes on human beings as biological organisms. Research covered in this (quarterly) interdisciplinary journal is not bound by temporal or geographic limitations.